LOSS AND DAMAGE FROM A CATASTROPHIC LANDSLIDE IN NEPAL

Transcription

1 LOSS AND DAMAGE FROM A CATASTROPHIC LANDSLIDE IN NEPAL

2 WHAT HAPPENED? On 2 August 2014, a major landslide struck in a densely populated area 80 km northeast of Nepal's capital Kathmandu in Jure, Sindhupalchok District. With a death toll of 156, it was one of the deadliest landslides in Nepal's history. The landslide had a length of 1.26 km and was 0.81 km wide at the bottom. It destroyed all land, houses, properties and infrastructure in its path and created a 55m-high dam in the Sunkoshi River. Behind the debris dam, a 3 km long lake inundated houses, farms and a hydropower plant. The Araniko Highway, Nepal s only road connection to China, was severely damaged, leading to nation-wide impacts Former river course Former tree line Landslide area 25 October 2012 Source: Google Earth Landslide area 10 August 2014 Source: Google Earth RESEARCH QUESTION: What losses and damages did the 2014 landslide in the Sindhupalchok District cause to households in the area; how effective were their preventive and coping measures; and what were the major constraints? ATTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE? Landslides are often triggered by extreme rainfall events, but the existence of a causal relationship with climate change is uncertain. While climate change alters the conditions that underlie the region s weather, the Jure landslide was also caused by factors such as unsustainable land use, the absence of effective water-channeling mechanisms, a weak geology and steep slopes. Thus, although anthropogenic causes may have increased the likelihood of a landslide to occur, it cannot be pinpointed as its definitive cause. WHAT IS LOSS AND DAMAGE: Adverse effects of climate-related stressors that have not been or cannot be avoided through mitigation and adaptation efforts.

3 FINDINGS The findings are based on questionnaire interviews with 234 households in the Sindhupalchok District HOUSEHOLD PROFILE Gender of household head: 81.5% male. Livelihood: 94.4% have at least three sources; 98.7% are farmers. Median land ownership: 3,200 m² (0.32 ha). Poverty: 76.8% live below a poverty line of $1.25/capita/day. Median: $0.6/capita/day. Education: 28.2% of respondents have never been to school. Preventive measures Uptake: 65.3% adopted measures; most common measures were livelihood diversification (41.6%) and placing physical barriers (37.6%). Most successful: House adjustments and pro-active migration. Least successful: Physical barriers and land-use adjustments. Nobody expected a landslide of this scale, and therefore, preventive measures by households and organizations were limited. House adjustments Pro-active migration livelihood diversification Physical barriers Land use adjustments % % of households Effective Marginally effective Non-effective Impact Most common impact types: Loss of crops (79.9%), land (79.1%) and mental stress (68.4%). Most costly impact type: Loss of land. For 67% of the respondent households, the value of land losses was more than $1000. Households in the lowest income group were the most severely affected. They lost a median of 14 times their annual earnings. They may never return to the level of assets, livelihood security and well-being they had prior to the landslide. Households in the highest income group had higher absolute losses (median: $10,300), but the value of losses was much less in relative terms (three times the annual earnings). Still, it will take them years to recover from the landslide impacts. 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 $ < $1000 $ $2000 > $ Annual household income Median Loss and Damage ($) Median Loss and Damage relative to annual income Loss and Damage divided by annual income

4 Landslide impact map Coping Recovery Impact types Icons appear when > 50% reported experiencing the impact LIVELIHOOD Crops CROWN 78% adopted three or more measures to cope with landslide impacts. Social networks, loans and food stores/savings were the most effective coping measures (not in graph). Coping measures adopted Relief 73.0% Over half of the households think they will never recover from the impacts of this landslide. Livestock Food stores/savings 63.2% Soil/Land Trees ASSETS FLANKS LANDSLIDE FLANKS Migration Reduced spending Alter food intake Social networks Non-farm income 32.9% 40.1% 58.3% 58.1% 57.6% 54.5% Will never fully recover Housing Loans Sell assets 6.8% 29.0% Drinking water Properties NON-ECONOMIC DAMSITE RIVER DIRECTION Health Mental stress DEBRIS DAM DEBRIS DAM LAKE 26.1% Still have not recovered The difference between colour icons and white icons is based on the average impact costs. Solid: More than $1000 White: Less than $1000 Map Summary Area around debris dam was most severely affected. DOWNSTREAM OPPOSITE BANK OPPOSITE LAKESIDE UPSTREAM 16.1% Recovered Crops were affected in all study sites but in different ways: - Damsite and opposite bank: Crops were covered by debris. - Crown and flanks: All crops were lost on land that slid down. - Upstream: Crops were inundated. - Downstream: Crops were washed away by outburst flood. 3.3% Situation even improved

5 Conclusion While prevention is better than cure, as is too often the case with disasters, little was done to prevent landslide impacts. Much more resources went into post-disaster relief. Besides loss of life, houses and land, people in the area suffered a wide range of impacts from the landslide, particularly on their livelihoods. This challenges the narrow definition of affected households that the government and aid organizations used to distribute relief. For discussions on loss and damage valuation and compensation, the household impact analysis demonstrates an important lesson learned: The people who are in most dire need of support for survival and recovery end up receiving the least because their losses are lower in monetary terms. For the first time, this study assessed both what people did to prevent and cope with disasters and how effective the individual measures were. The new methods toolbox used for this case study was a valuable resource for understanding not just what is lost in disasters, but also how and why. Policy implications To address loss and damage: AVOID LANDSLIDES MINIMIZE IMPACTS TACKLE RESIDUAL IMPACTS Place barriers against land erosion. Plant trees. Raise people s awareness locally of landslide risks and the importance of sustainable land use. Scientific research: Identify high-risk areas, e.g. using the Landslide Susceptibility Index (LSI.) Resettlement: Away from high-risk areas. Assisted migration. Early Warning Systems (EWS). Design escape routes. Fortify river embankments to minimize impacts of debris lake outburst floods. Promotion and support of more resilient building methods. Conduct risk-assessments for infrastructure. Sanitary facilities/equipment after disasters to limit spread of disease. Provide compensation to affected households. Provide affordable loans to facilitate recovery. Support and promote non-farm income opportunities to people who lost their land. Provide subsidized and affordable insurance against impacts of landslides and other disasters. CONTEXT: METHODS TOOLBOX FOR ASSESSING LOSS & DAMAGE IN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES The Nepal case study was conducted to test a new methods toolbox for assessing Loss & Damage in vulnerable communities. Besides the Nepal case study, the method toolbox has been tested in India (cyclone) and Pakistan (drought and floods). The toolbox is unique in that its methodology is people-centered and combines qualitative and quantitative research tools that go beyond a simple stocktaking of disaster losses. The toolbox can play a significant role in enhancing the understanding of loss and damage, which is a key objective of the Warsaw International Mechanism The toolbox was designed at the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), with financial support from the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN). LEAD-Pakistan was the project consortium lead and the field work in Nepal was organized by the Integrated Development Society Nepal (IDS-Nepal). For more information, please contact Dr. Kees van der Geest, UNU-EHS: geest@ehs.unu.edu Connect with UNU-EHS: Website: twitter.com/unuehs facebook.com/unuehs linkedin.com/company/unu-ehs Publications: This factsheet was developed by Dr. Kees van der Geest and Markus Schindler.